[Note: Persons who interpret Hate in some childish way, such as a symptom of fear, or in the absurd academic sense of Hate as being a form of impotence; a being bound to, are kindly requested not to answer.]

Generally speaking, Hate is what grows into human beings, into the core of their life, until it becomes existence itself. Slaves for the most part loved their masters, for instance in the old South, in America. This is straightforwardly recorded in oral histories taken closer to the turn of the century. Harriet Tubman said, in this connection, I would have saved infinitely more if only they had known they were salves. On the other hand, for the most part, the masters Hated their slaves, which is patently obvious if one judge by the truth of the manifest oppression of slavery itself, only concealed by various notions of a paternalist character. Hate, indeed, is the root spring of all creation. Luther knew that the envy of the higher clergy fueled his, which was the twenty first full scale revolt, against Catholicism. Comte de Buffon asserted "the lion is the king of the jungle". At the founding of the most elitist of the French schools, as the revolution was busied sprinkling blood, Daubenton, then eighty, and finally out of the shadow of Buffon, remarked, "the lion is not the king of the jungle." Why does the human seek to deceive itself? For, though Hate, genuinely this malignant Hate that moves in the core of all beings, grows into all beings, and is their very being, it is everywhere not noticed. For who can notice what is so close to themselves? Think of all those beings, who under the doctrine of full spectrum superiority of the United State's military prowess, call themselves free and equal born Progressives. So deep is their hate for all human beings they speak of loving them as they kill them.

I don't expect the group to be convinced by this sketch, but only to set their own eyes to the art of seeing Hate by their own means. Other details of Hate's power might be brought forward by the group. Assertion means nothing, only genuine insight persuades.

I seem to have missed the genuine insight you provided to support your assertions that:

"Hate, indeed, is the root spring of all creation.""...Hate, genuinely this malignant Hate that moves in the core of all beings, grows into all beings, and is their very being...""...Hate is what grows into human beings, into the core of their life, until it becomes existence itself."

How do you account for what you describe as a motivational tendency in all humans "that moves in the core of all beings?"

Where does it come from? Are you saying that all humans create these hateful feelings within themselves? Or are you indeed claiming that humans are biologically programmed to hate? And if so, what is it that you believe they are biologically programmed to hate? Anything and everything? For no reason whatsoever?

Some genuine insight from you on this matter would be greatly appreciated...

I seem to have missed the genuine insight you provided to support your assertions...

[elided by me]

How good of you to notice this obvious irony, I thought, but then realized that he did not contrast 'assertion' with 'sound arguments' or 'assertions coupled with justification and evidence', etc. He contrasted 'assertion' with 'genuine insight'. IOW you missed the clear ontological difference between assertions in general and his assertions which are genuine insights. I think these used to be called things like 'self-evident truths' and 'apriori truths'. Read them again and I am sure you will be convinced directly without the mediation of sound argument or justification.

“It is natural to hate what hates you when it has come kind of power or influence over you. Hence the slaves hated their masters, with exceptions of course. Your post is very unclear, second language?”

The group regards this as unworthy academic prattle derived from authority, however, it signals receipt of the participation.

I seem to have missed the genuine insight you provided to support your assertions...[elided by me]

How good of you to notice this obvious irony, I thought, but then realized that he did not contrast 'assertion' with 'sound arguments' or 'assertions coupled with justification and evidence', etc. He contrasted 'assertion' with 'genuine insight'. IOW you missed the clear ontological difference between assertions in general and his assertions which are genuine insights. I think these used to be called things like 'self-evident truths' and 'apriori truths'. Read them again and I am sure you will be convinced directly without the mediation of sound argument or justification.

What the group is saying is that no authority can govern collective investigation. Not that genuine insight has been achieved. Rather, the investigation of the group is draw to it as its only standard.

It's trivially cogent that nothing like "'sound arguments' or 'assertions coupled with justification and evidence'," can ever be a standard, since the question of what they are could never be answered, or, of who is to say when they are there. That could only remain a rule. Or, at best, something judged by the standard of the better minds, using them as the rule.

“It is natural to hate what hates you when it has come kind of power or influence over you. Hence the slaves hated their masters, with exceptions of course. Your post is very unclear, second language?”

The group regards this as unworthy academic prattle derived from authority, however, it signals receipt of the participation.

Academic? I suppose I could have used more urban slang or something, but that's everyday speech, not even approaching grammatical.

Guide wrote:What the group is saying is that no authority can govern collective investigation.

Most authorities think their assertions genuine insights. Some genuine insights do not persuade. Some mere assertions do persuade. Assertions of rosy, loving mammys and stepins, are based on little experience or knowledge of what is shown to those who can kill you on a whim. Put that hate outside of love, if you want, but it hasn't worked. The only ones who listen are those who should not.

In my experience, hate is most compatible with disdain. But hate is more addictive, like cocaine, the user depends on it, would not give it up for anything, alows it to drive him. By choice! Though if choice where tested, hate and cocaine would both win. But that's the trick of them, they give a feeling of power that commands choice, happily given, forcefully taken.

They may be the happiest human beings around. Not in the usual sense of happy, but the addict sense of happy. A giddy sort of freedom.

Disdain is different. It is neither a choice nor offers it. It is less understood, because everybody hates, but a select few feel disdain. This is my experience, anyway.

Disdain allows the hateful to act, because it is disdainful of its victims. Of the hater too, but it is like hating is disdain for the lower classes.

The main difference is that hate is born of love, also a lower class affection in my experience. Of expecting others to return feelings and acts of goodwill. Meanwhile disdain is born out of pride, out of expecting others to show bravery in all and any sphere. The hate master will inicially seem brave, thus offputting disdain. But it is soon revealed that hate promotes more daring than bravery, obviously, as long as the action is vengeful, never for daring's sake, so it is also a more limited daring.

But in a deeper way, a less conscious one, hate allows disdain. Because disdain enjoys the weak being put in their place, though itself would never sully itself so.

Better love and bravery if they can be found. Not together, as bravery is loftier, but in a similar way as the above they are retrofeeding.

The revenge of disdain is nurture. The revenge of hate is forcefeeding.

Nurture is opposite of bravery, force feeding of love.

In both cases it is revenge in that it reshapes the world, one who is not vengeful does not do this, it is a violation of people's preferences. Also in that in both cases it brings no satisfaction, the hallmark of revenge.

The reason destruction is the aim of neither is of course that there is no such thing as evil, no central point to destroy. Destruction occurs as a side effect. The vengful always run into the truth that they themselves are the closest thing to evil.

Guide wrote:“It is natural to hate what hates you when it has come kind of power or influence over you. Hence the slaves hated their masters, with exceptions of course. Your post is very unclear, second language?”

The group regards this as unworthy academic prattle derived from authority, however, it signals receipt of the participation.Academic? I suppose I could have used more urban slang or something, but that's everyday speech, not even approaching grammatical.

The group regards the view that slaves hated their masters as false and it has something to do with academically produced ideology which comes into the daily discussion of everyone. The group has given, above, several reasons not to believe that. The group wastes the group’s time by ignoring what was written, and writing without responding to it.

Guide wrote:What the group is saying is that no authority can govern collective investigation.Most authorities think their assertions genuine insights. Some genuine insights do not persuade. Some mere assertions do persuade. Assertions of rosy, loving mammys and stepins, are based on little experience or knowledge of what is shown to those who can kill you on a whim. Put that hate outside of love, if you want, but it hasn't worked. The only ones who listen are those who should not.

The group means by hate, in the most clear case, the rejoicing in cruelty one feels in causing pain with no need for a concern with self defense. In a certain sense, human being hate stones on this view. Hate is a kind of fullness of disrespect, but one which is great in that it feeds the one who hates and gives them their life. For instance, in the release of stress the alpha animal has, in openly and freely abusing the weak.

The lion is the king of the beasts, the human is the one who hates existence to the hilt.

“In my experience, hate is most compatible with disdain. But hate is more addictive, like cocaine, the user depends on it, would not give it up for anything, alows it to drive him. By choice! Though if choice where tested, hate and cocaine would both win. But that's the trick of them, they give a feeling of power that commands choice, happily given, forcefully taken.”

The group appreciates this word of the group, which is in keeping with what the group had in mind.

“Disdain is different. It is neither a choice nor offers it. It is less understood, because everybody hates, but a select few feel disdain. This is my experience, anyway.”

Perhaps this word of the group is so, the group says: is disdain equivalent to a kind of self reserve? In self reserve, one has not the enjoyment of the relief of stress. But, if anything, a greater stress.

“Disdain allows the hateful to act, because it is disdainful of its victims. Of the hater too, but it is like hating is disdain for the lower classes.”

The group says, in this sense disdain seems much like the sense of invulnerability. Ergo, it is far from the absurd academic (liberal-democratic ideological ersatz) notion that hate is bound to its own fear of the hated thing.

“The main difference is that hate is born of love, also a lower class affection in my experience.”

For instance, the “watermelon grin” which is the demeaning of the hated black man, to such a level that he loves his masters, and grins when granted their favor, the favor of the ones he loves. Since here one sees the profundity of the vile situation which the sanctimonious idiot academic ideology utterly occludes. This is very visible if one sees that the feelings of segregation era South, of resentment and some hate, for the white southerner, is already outside the slavery situation proper, already marks a break in it and the cusp of transformation on the objective surface of social life.

“Better love and bravery if they can be found. Not together, as bravery is loftier, but in a similar way as the above they are retrofeeding.”

The group says, in this sense, a second disdain, that of bravery and hate, points away from hate’s disdain to self struggle and painful truthfulness of the inner vision.

"Needless to say, the hater is uncounsciously the one that feels most love, and the disdainful the one most capable of bravery."

The group says, it would be fatal for the one who has hate in the core of their being, to encounter love in their field of vision, or as part of their frame of mind. Then they would slump over, give way, lose all intensity of their attempt, cease to laugh when the other falls, become dissipated and begin to love as the salve of all.

The disdainful are disdainful of cruelty. Cruelty is only undertaken by those who expected goodwill in return for goodwill and got some more ancient abuse than cruelty instead.

Disdain does not seek release because it has nothing to be released from. There is no stress, stress being a consequence of hard work. Self reservation may be a tool of the disdainful to encourage engagement. The disdainful are too disdainful to think that any could make use of what is reserved, it is only reserved to cause temptation into bravery in those that may or may not have the stuff for it.

A disdainful man will usually have stated quite clearly all his positions which uninteligability served to create his disdain.

The disdainful are disdainful of cruelty. Cruelty is only undertaken by those who expected goodwill in return for goodwill and got some more ancient abuse than cruelty instead.

The group can accept the first sentence, since the disdainful may even disdain to rejoice in cruelty. But, the group can not stay with the second statement. This is out of keeping with its conception of cruelty, and also of hate. Cruelty is sheer delight in ruthless use of the other, it has no connection to a crestfallen disillusionment or anything of the sort. The lion is surely not a disillusioned beast, but it smiles within the center of its heart, laughing deeply at the kill which it toys with. The kill had never been contemplated under any other concept, but the exaltation and enjoyment of the cruel one.

“Disdain does not seek release because it has nothing to be released from. There is no stress, stress being a consequence of hard work.”

The group finds this much too Marxist and academic. It is sheer fancy motivated by ideology, an attempt to manipulate or coerce a political opponent. It has no basis outside the university department and the apostles therein claimed and sent out into the world to fight for it. And then, of course, those it trickles down on in the popular discussion derivative on those sources. This is very bad of the group to suffer such cheap tendentious confections to enter its fold.

“In the same way that love would undo a hateful man, bravery would instantly undo a disdainful one.”

Bravery more often accompanies disdain, and fosters it. Think of Socrates, the most disdainful of them all. He who set aside all the goals of the others, their αγροίκος σοφίᾱ, bumpkin science, in full self-independence. Seeking to know himself.

To set aside even the joy of the lion, sheer cruelty, has something unbearably high in it. It almost seems divine. However, it turns towards what is more difficult by far.

There's no crestfallenness about it. It is more like a waking up, a new and improved understanding of the world.

Lions are not cruel. It is not the anguish of the victim that they relish, but their own ability to prevent their escape, the joy in their own hunting instinct. The victim has no feelings in their mind, only escape plans. Cruelty relishes pain, only something recognized can be relished.

Regarding disdain, it is daisdainful because it has never been forced or even challenged to exert its strength.

Socrates was not disdainful. Proof of this is that he cared what people thought. Disdain is Diogenes. No exertion was required to prove Xeno foolish.

But Socrates was a cynic, and knew of the cynic tradition of disdain, and imitated it to impress and convince his interlocutors. That was the farce.

A lion, for instance, would be incapable of sistematic, calm, unemotional torture where the enemy is fully bound. But this is the high point of cruelty. Cold disection of the feeling of pain in his enemy.